Ballmer’s Last Stand: Cloud Chief Taking Over Microsoft

NEW YORK — Microsoft Corp. reportedly is about to name Satya Nadella, the executive responsible for its cloud and enterprise division, as Steve Ballmer's successor as CEO.

Big data is fast becoming a major economic force, so the choice of Nadella would appear to reflect the moment in the industry and the place where Microsoft needs to be. Nadella would have beaten a host of high-profile candidates. News reports have suggested that the candidates have included Ford boss Alan Mulally, former Hewlett-Packard boss Mark Hurd, Ericsson chief Hans Vestberg, and Stephen Elop, who left a top job at Microsoft to run Nokia.

Appointing Nadella "would be likely to go down well with Microsoft's rank and file, where he is seen as a popular and consensus-driven engineer," according to a Financial Times report Friday (subscription required).

Nadella was born in Hyderabad in 1967 and studied computer science at the University of Wisconsin. He spent time at Sun Microsystems before joining Microsoft 22 years ago. He ran Microsoft's consumer online services business, including its Bing search engine, before moving to the enterprise side.

He now runs the team behind the next-generation Cloud OS platform, which powers all of Microsoft's business cloud services. The company's cloud services division is said to have played a key role in its great fiscal second quarter (which ended in December). Revenue from cloud services rose 107% from a year earlier to $609 million.

Industry analysts are giving Nadella high praise for his work as the cloud chief, but there is some concern about how he would handle decisions on tablets, smartphones, and other areas where he has no experience.

Who knows whether Nadella's appointment is a matter of time or a matter of speculation at this point....It certainly seems like he is popular with Microsoft employees, and woould not represent a major disruption being a company guy. Whether or not this means there will be more of a focus on the cloud also remains to be seen. Although that's his background, Nadella also has strengths in other areas and would ultimately be there to run the company not the datacenter business.

"Industry analysts are giving Nadella high praise for his work as the cloud chief, but there is some concern about how he would handle decisions on tablets, smartphones, and other areas where he has no experience."
One wonders what those same analysts would say if the new CEO were someone from a different industry, like a former auto company exec.

Actually Junko, I think bringing in an outsider with a fresh perspective would be a good move that would likely bring discipline and focus to the company. However, knowing what path to choose when your background is from a different industry could be a challenge.

If Satya Nadella from India becomes CEO, you can be sure that the jobs in India will be growing while the jobs located in the US will be shrinking. What jobs exist in the U.S. will be filled via H1B visas. Does anyone understand that we are in an economic war and China/India is winning? It amazes me how U.S companies allow themselves to be taken over.

Does anyone understand that we are in an economic war and China/India is winning?

Heh. The problem happens because "we" can refer to different people and/or organizations. Corporations are in a war among one another. They will do whatever it takes to win. Corporations aren't countries.

You have to be cynical about these things, not because being cynical is fun, but because the cynical view is simply more accurate. Microsoft would move any aspect of its operation offshore, if they see a net market advantage to doing so.

Years ago, when I was just starting out, an older and wiser colleague told me that one doesn't owe any special loyalty to the company one works for. Why? Because if it's in their best interest, they will lay you off in a heartbeat. I thought he was being overly pessimistic, at the time, but over the years, I have seen that this is so.

Good point Bert. I have seen it many times. The company will keep you as long as they feel that you are giving more than they pay you. As soon as they feel you are being paid more than you are worth to the company, you are at risk. It is a lot of fun to be good at what you do, but if it is not profitable for the company, you may still lose your job. I know people that are losing their jobs now despite what the president says. Times are tough and jobs are hard to find.

@CKent: What jobs exist in the U.S. will be filled via H1B visas. Does anyone understand that we are in an economic war and China/India is winning?

We are all in favor of competition when it benefits us in terms of lower prices and greater choice. We are less thrilled when we must compete.

Value is relative. Something is worth what someone else will pay for it. That includes the worker's labor. If another worker can do the same job you do as well as you can, and is willing to do it for a lot less than you charge, tell me why an employer should pay you your desired rate? (Hint: there is no reason.)

Work flows to where it can be done cheapest. The growth of the Internet has vastly accellerated that process. With instant high speed communications, many jobs that don't have to be performed in a particular location, like software development or engineering design, can be done from anywhere in the world, and increasingly are.

In the world we are moving into, if it can be done by machine, it will be. If it can be done somewhere else by someone willing to do it cheaper, that will happen too.

The challenge for any worker is to provide value the customer is willing to pay thier desired rate to have done. For technologists, it's the Red Queen's Race: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

The usual response to cries about competition from China and India are protectionist. and call for government regulation to protect US jobs. The problem is, it will at best delay the inevitable. There is constant pressure to lower costs and increase productivity, and those pressures caused the work to migrate where it could be done cheaper.

We all look for the best deals we can get on stuff we buy, and the Internet provides tools to help us find them. The flip side to protecting US jobs is higher prices. How much more are you willing to pay for what you buy to have it produced in the US by US workers at US wage scales? Half again what you pay now? Double? Because that may be the price of what you seem to want.